Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoism and death


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 06:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Taoism and death

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is part of the same dubious "school project" that is currently the subject of two other afds at Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science and Articles for deletion/Islam and civil rights. The tutor or mentor of the project has determinedly resisted all attempts to help and insists on posting this mediocre, unencyclopedic rubbish. It's poorly written, POV, badly referenced original research. Fails WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:VER. andy (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely non-NPOV and seems to be entirely synthesis original research based off of one source. There is a merge template there, but no discussion whatsoever has started. However, I seriously doubt the current material could be merged into Taoism, especially when it's not NPOV. MuZemike 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Synthesis is the misuse of multiple sources and so your rationale makes no sense. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I didn't know what I was thinking, there. MuZemike 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete more of the same school project that brought us Hinduism and science, and with all the same problems. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly written, simplistic, POV essay based largely on material from a single source. It is not even clear what exact book is being used as a reference, since the citation "Wong,Taoism,Shambahala publications" is incomplete besides misspelling the publisher's name. The publisher's website lists no book by that exact name, and the writings seem to be generic devotee literature. Again, it may be possible to write an encyclopedic article on this topic, but this start is not helpful at all, and misleads the readers. Abecedare (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  04:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV article which doesn't include much in the way of sources.  Verges on the OR at times.  Is this a snowball candidate? -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge There seems to be a merge proposal for this which is a more sensible approach than this AFD. The material has a source and so is better than many/most new articles.  It should be preserved in accordance with our editing policy.  Note by the way, that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so this includes school projects.  Prejudice against the article on this ground is improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the possibility of a merge but I couldn't see anything in this mediocre article that was suitable for merging. Nobody is prejudiced against it because it's a school project - quite the contrary. You should read the many comments and offers of assistance on User talk:Vote Cthulhu and the talk pages of the various articles that form part of this "project".
 * Frankly, Vote Cthulhu has set up an ill thought out project which he doesn't have the knowledge to teach adequately (he is unaware of many WP basics such as the use of a sandbox), has allowed students to write poor quality articles that trample all over many WP policies and conventions including copyright, verifiability and neutrality, and he has refused flatly to do anything to correct the problems he seems to have created. Goodness knows what the students have learned from this mess - I don't.
 * Meanwhile this is an encyclopedia, not a playground. andy (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not see any particular POV issue here. Citations need to be cleaned up, and the article can certainly be expanded. No use merging since very little is written on this precise subject elsewhere. andy certainly does exhibit a prejudice here; other users will note in his history that he has been relentlessly trying to delete, redirect, and otherwise harass all articles associated with me recently. Note that andy uses the "fact" that other articles related to this one are under consideration for deletion, but other users must realise that these have all been placed under such consideration by andy himself.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE As Wikipedia policy states, "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." So, why not move to actually improve this article rather than simply trying to delete it almost immediately after its creation?Vote Cthulhu (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not policy, just the philosophy of the Rescue Squadron. And there's rather more to it than that, anyway. Please take some advice: before embarking on any school projects in the future do familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies. As I've previously mentioned, WP:SUP is a great place to start. andy (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to boil down to: "I don't like this guy's school project, so let's get rid of it all." Poor argument. Show me the POV being argued here. Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevant policies include: Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO it can't be fixed through normal editing, for the reasons outline in the nomination and endorsed by several editors, and I don't see any sign of anyone doing so. I've been able to fix one of this "project's" articles by gutting it and adding better quality material from elsewhere. If the same can be done to this article why doesn't someone do so? andy (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason may be the chilling effect of trying to delete the article. Another reason is the common misconception that article improvements are someone else's problem.  A third reason is that we may be busy working upon other articles.  But I shall take a look now as I am not so easily discouraged. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have written a paragraph from two good sources. It is slow going because Taoism is a complex religion which compounds numerous ideas.  I have no special expertise in this subject but can already tell that it is a substantial topic for which there are numerous sources, as you would expect for a major religion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly a subject that is suitable for an encyclopedia; the teachings of a major religion about death are clearly notable and important.  I see no reason any problem here cannot be fixed by editing, therefore WP:DELETION and WP:EP both require us to improve this content, rather than delete it. JulesH (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that this article actually covers "the teachings of a major religion about death"? It's been written by students who do not seem to know anything about the subject and who do not seem to have been properly supervised. The issues are about the fundamental reliability of the article - frankly, pretty much anything in it could be completely untrue and no non-Taoist editor would have a clue. Do you know how to edit it to fix these unknown problems? I certainly don't. For example, please see the recent intervention by Mitsube in a related AfD here. andy (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are ignorant of the topic, why are you so confident that its authors know nothing about it? Please familiarise yourself with our guidelines, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for you to bite me, either. If you read the nomination you'll see that the issues are to do with verifiability, clear POV and obvious OR. If you trouble yourself to read the various comments here and on the related AfDs you'll see that there's been plenty of good faith by myself and other editors but precious little by the people who have been running this "project" and who seem not to care about such things as copyright and verifiability. As it happens I have a masters degree in Philosophy and have even read (with enjoyment) Tao Te Ching. I know quite a lot about the subject which is why I nominated it but I'm not a Taoist, can't spot all the problems and don't have the arrogance to assume I could do a proper job of fixing them. But even if I knew nothing of Taoism I hope I could spot the obvious and (IMHO) fatal flaws in an article such as this one. So please, try assuming good faith yourself and try to be civil next time you come across someone who disagrees with you! andy (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (And I have a PhD in Religious Studies and have read the Tao Te Ching, in addition to the Chuang Tzu, several times. Since my credentials trump yours, does this mean you give up now?)Vote Cthulhu (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your previous comments indicated that you knew nothing of the topic but I now understand that you are just too modest - an honest misunderstanding for which I apologise. Please note that advanced knowledge of topics is not required to edit our articles as this is the encyclopedia which anyone may edit.  This is my essential point, that you seem hostile to editing by the authors of this and other articles and this is quite contrary to our guideline of WP:BITE.  All are welcome here and it is our explicit policy that we should nuture contributors and contributions rather than suppressing them.  The expected action in such cases is that knowledgeable editors such as yourself will assist the development of such articles.  I have made my own modest contribution - it is not so hard. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I see someone making an error I offer to help. If they push my hand away I don't waste any further effort on them. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for egos. I'm old fashioned that way, and I have no time for fools. andy (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I suggest yo take your own advice here and apply it to yourself. You have no time for fools at the same time as you acknowledge ignorance in a subject that you claim to see fatal flaws. Further, you claim that you have not bitten the newbies, when you offered nothing but Afds and senseless redirects. You didn't offer an help at all. Instead, you've claimed that these articles are beyond help and moved to have them deleted even before they were finished. Quite frankly, your crusade here is ridiculous.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject of the article is fine, and the article itself has references, and seems credible enough. If you doubt any of the statements made, then tag it with a citation needed, and discuss it on the article's talk page.   D r e a m Focus  20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What if you think that pretty much everything in the article can be called into doubt? You tag it with AFD, and here we are andy (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original research, nothing of substance to salvage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I simply MUST point out once again that this AfD has been sparked by andy, who has taken it upon himself to attack several articles that were related only by their having been part of a school project in which students created new articles on a variety of subjects. andy argues that all of these articles should be deleted because, and I quote, they've "been written by students who do not seem to know anything about the subject and who do not seem to have been properly supervised." This entire statement is a conjecture on his part which reveals an obvious bias against this and other articles. Colonel Warden rightly points out andy's ignorance and directs him to WP:BITE. Further, many comments above indicate an acknowledgment of the topic's value. That one editor who admits to an ignorance of the subject should not see any way to edit the article does not mean that nobody can. This article, and others under attack from the nom, should be kept in order for it to be edited and fixed as is the norm for Wikipedia.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Andy has not nominated all of the articles for deletion. At least one, Jewish clothing, he improved and did not try to get deleted. There are others I think he has not touched at all. Several others, while making the obvious connections between them of having been your students' projects, he has nominated and they are being decided individually whether they should be kept or not (and the conclusions have not all been the same for those discussions that have been completed). Aleta  Sing 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification Obviously, Andy has not nominated ALL articles for deletion. What I intended to say is that ALL of the articles to which he constantly refers were ALL nominated to AfD by him. My point here is that he seems to refer editors to the fact that this collection of essays have all been nominated for deletion, somehow indicated a collective weakness, while it is Andy himself who has nominated them all. I am pleased to see that the conclusion has not been to delete in each case, though I am disappointed that andy continues to rail against the existence of articles that have received a KEEP consensus, as with Christianity in Haiti.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All editors are reminded to remain WP:CIVIL and to focus on the article under consideration here. DMacks (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Civility Clarification If my use of the term "ignorant" was seen as uncivil, I apologise. I did not mean to suggest that anyone was necessarily ignorant about all matters, rather I refer to the acknowledgment above that the editor in question professes a certain degree of ignorance about a subject which he then goes on to suggest is unsalvageable. My point simply is that such an argument holds no logical weight.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously this article needs work, but the section on "Immortality" is reliable -- if uncited. (See Taoist alchemy for details; Holmes Welch, Taoism: the Parting of the Way contains far more details on Taoists seeking immortality.) I'd say a better approach would be to stubify -- chop off everything after the first paragraph, except a few sections from the "Immortality" section, & put a stub tag on it. (PS, let's discuss the article, not the editors here.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go along with that although I suspect that the author isn't. That first paragraph is not part of the original article which is the subject of this AfD. Clearly Taoism has something to say about Death but this article doesn't say it. andy (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The original author doesn't have any right of veto over rewriting this article. And I say that as someone who has had more than a few articles rewritten past recognition -- an act which resulted in at least two of them becoming FAs, FWIW. -- llywrch (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Delete - reads like a "compare and contrast" essay. If there's anything there worth rescuing, put it in Taoism. --John Nagle (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Some of the content is salvageable and the topic is notable and deserving of its own article. Tag for cleanup, find sources, remove original research... but deletion is unwarranted. -kotra (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.